Middle East

David Johnson, from April 2011 issue of Socialism Today, monthly
magazine of the Socialist Party (CWI England & Wales)

Lessons for today’s revolution

Millions of Egyptians have brought down the hated Mubarak. Now workers
and youth are discussing what should follow. The ideas put forward by
Nasser over 50 years ago are being re-examined. DAVID JOHNSON looks back
to Nasser’s regime and the lessons that can be drawn for the revolution
today.

Young demonstrators in Tahrir Square had only known life under Hosni
Mubarak, who ruled for 30 years. Older generations remember his
predecessors – Gamal Abd el-Nasser and Anwar el-Sadat. Some older
workers still refer to Nasser’s period in the 1950s and 1960s as
‘socialism’ – the party he established was called the Arab Socialist
Union (ASU).

In the 1970s Sadat promoted the capitalist free market, including
changing the name of the ASU to the National Democratic Party – the
party the regime ruled with until Mubarak’s ousting.

In the 19th century, Egypt was part of the Turkish Ottoman empire but,
in 1882, during a nationalist rebellion, British imperialism sent its
navy and an army of occupation. The British ruling class wanted to
protect the Suez canal route to its empire, as well as its investments
in cotton, Egypt’s main export. The cotton trade expanded over the next
20 years, enriching a layer of landowners. By 1913, 13,000 landowners
owned almost half of all cultivated, while one-and-a-half million
peasants only owned about one third. During the first world war, cotton
prices rose sharply, so big landowners planted more, making large
profits, but leading to food shortages and higher prices for the poor.
Today, Egyptian agriculture is also increasingly geared towards cash
crop exports.

Financiers and businessmen emerged from this layer of wealthy
landowners, profiting by making goods that were not imported during the
war. Local industry developed quickly so the small working class grew in
size, and militancy, joined by rail and dockworkers employed in war
transportation. The developing Egyptian capitalist and working classes
confronted an obstacle to both their interests: the continuing
occupation by British imperialism.

Capitalists and landlords wanted independence from Britain to build
their political and economic interests – but they feared a movement of
the workers and rural poor. Government positions would give them
prestige and the power to reward supporters with contracts and jobs. The
biggest party agitating for independence was the Wafd (Delegation).
Forty percent of its leaders were landowners, others were financiers,
industrialists and administrators.

Workers wanted independence to end exploitation and hardship, which
greatly increased during the war. A massive strike wave and
demonstrations in 1919 forced the British government to agree to
negotiations over independence. Three years later, after continuing
strikes and unrest, the British Declaration announced an ‘independent’
Egyptian state, while keeping a veto over foreign policy, protected
British business interests and maintained a garrison in the Suez canal
zone.

Permanent revolution

The Ottoman sultan was appointed king. Weak unstable governments came
and went - from 1922-52 their average life was under a year. The same
ministers, 60% of whom were landowners, took turns to hold different
posts. The Egyptian capitalists were unable and unwilling to carry
through the tasks of a capitalist (‘bourgeois’) revolution: throwing out
foreign rule, ending the power of feudal landowners, developing a modern
capitalist economy. Capitalists, bankers and landowners were linked to
each other. All feared the small but potentially powerful working class
more than they feared British imperialism. In 1923, the first Wafd
government brought in laws to repress left-wing parties and ban many
strikes.

Only the working class, drawing behind it the mass of poor peasants,
could have completed the tasks of the bourgeois revolution. This was
Leon Trotsky’s theory of the permanent revolution, developed in relation
to Russia at the start of the 20th century. A workers’ government would
not stop at creating conditions for capitalism to develop, but would
nationalise industry, banks and land, laying the basis for a socialist
plan of production. An appeal to workers in more economically advanced
countries to follow their example would spread socialist revolution
across the world and provide the aid needed to develop a poor country.

The Russian revolution brilliantly confirmed this theory. However, the
revolutions it sparked did not lead to other workers’ states. Workers’
leaders either failed to take advantage of opportunities to take power
or, later, under the influence of the Stalinist bureaucracy which
developed in the Soviet Union, derailed revolutionary movements.
Nevertheless, the bureaucracy’s position depended on a state-owned
economy – a return to capitalism would have meant its ousting from
power. The advantages of state planning meant the economy grew rapidly,
although at far higher cost than if workers’ democracy had survived.

The Egyptian Communist Party was founded in 1922 but was mainly based
among minorities. It followed Stalin’s disastrous policies and never
grew to a mass force. Instead, disappointment in the results of
independence led to the growth of the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in
1928.

A crisis during the second world war led the British army to instruct
king Faruq to form a Wafd government, with British tanks outside his
palace making sure he got the message. This highlighted that,
ultimately, power still rested with imperialism. It also showed the
weakness and hypocrisy of the Egyptian ruling class, including the Wafd,
which 20 years earlier had agitated for independence. A period of
stagnation and conflict between the king and government followed, each
trying to get their followers into positions of influence.

Although the economy grew between 1922-52, most people’s living
standards fell. The gap between rich and poor increased. A 15-hour day
was common and factories still employed children under ten years old. By
1950, only 30% of children received secondary education. There were two
million industrial workers in 1952, one tenth of the total workforce.
Widespread strikes, including general strikes, took place after the war
along with demonstrations by students and others. Left-wing parties and
papers were banned and activists arrested.

The rise of the Free Officers

The 1947 United Nations resolution dividing Palestine prior to the
formation of Israel fuelled anger, which increased after the defeat of
the Egyptian army in the 1948 war. Thirteen disaffected middle-ranking
officers started meeting secretly in 1949. They were all aged 28-35, the
sons of small landowners or minor government employees. Nasser became
the chair of this Free Officers movement. Sadat was a founding member.

They gradually built influence among other officers. When, on 20 July
1952, another weak government resigned after only 18 days, the Free
Officers took action. Overnight on 22/23 July, troops took over key
buildings, roads and bridges in Cairo. The corrupt king was ordered into
exile. Sadat made the radio announcement of the takeover. Nasser became
deputy prime minister and minister of the interior – then prime minister
and president in 1954.

The Free Officers represented middle-class frustration at the complete
failure of capitalist politicians to develop society. In contrast to the
weak landlord-capitalist class, the military was a powerful, organised
force. The officers wanted political power and opposed independent
working-class action. All political parties were abolished in January
1953. Like other ‘third world’ regimes of that period, Egypt’s military
played a ‘bonapartist’ role, playing off different classes and political
groupings against one another. The press, local councils and lawyers’
association were purged. In 1954, the Muslim Brotherhood was banned, its
leaders arrested and exiled to Saudi Arabia, from where they were to
return later, having adopted the more extreme Wahhabi Islam.

The new government’s programme spoke of nationalism and social justice.
Its objectives were the destruction of imperialism, eradication of
feudalism and ending of monopoly. However, there was no clear economic
policy, which was expected to continue under private ownership. “We are
not socialists. I think our economy can only prosper under free
enterprise”, said Gamal Salim, a leading Free Officer.

Nonetheless, most capitalists were panic stricken and many emigrated.
Private-sector investment plummeted, pushing the regime in a different
direction. An early measure was land reform, limiting the size of
holdings to 80 hectares. The tiny number of very big landlords who had
dominated previous governments lost the economic basis of their power.
Fifteen percent of cultivable land was transferred to landless peasants.
Cooperatives gave cheap credit, seeds and fertiliser. But more than half
the rural population remained landless, the main winners being small
landowners.

The Suez crisis

Two global superpowers emerged at the end of the second world war – the
USA and the USSR. They both attempted to extend their spheres of
influence, bringing them into conflict in many parts of the world. With
nuclear weapons threatening ‘mutually assured destruction’, conflicts
took the form of proxy wars between their client regimes. So-called
‘non-aligned’ governments, including Nasser’s regime, tried balancing
between the two superpowers.

In 1955 Nasser signalled a shift in his position by ordering arms from
the USSR. This may have been a negotiating ploy to get more arms from
the USA. He told the US ambassador that he would still prefer US
military assistance. The 1955 Baghdad pact, signed by the British
government, had also angered Nasser. This central Asian treaty defended
imperialist interests in Iran, Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East.
Nasser infuriated the French government by refusing to call for an end
to the uprising in Algeria against French occupation. Independence
movements were spreading like wildfire throughout the old European
colonies.

At the same time, the Egyptian government was negotiating for
international loans to build the Aswan high dam – a huge project that
would greatly increase land available for cultivation and generate
electricity needed for industrialisation. The USA and Britain had
offered a fifth of the cost, hoping this would buy influence over the
regime. However, after the USSR arms deal, the USA cancelled its offer
in July 1956.

Nasser responded by announcing the nationalisation of the Suez canal to
a massive meeting in Alexandria, saying its revenues would finance the
dam. An eyewitness described how “the people went wild with excitement”.
The canal company was French, with the British government the largest
shareholder.

These two governments secretly colluded with the Israeli government to
launch an invasion of Egypt in October. The invasion proved disastrous
for Britain and France, achieving its military targets but arousing huge
international opposition. Arab masses throughout the Middle East
supported the Nasser regime. There was massive opposition in Britain.
The US government saw its regional interests threatened and demanded the
invasion be ended, imposing economic sanctions against Britain. The
three governments were forced into a humiliating withdrawal. Meanwhile,
Soviet tanks rolled into Hungary to suppress the political revolution
there.

State control of the economy

Nasser emerged with the reputation of a leader who stood up to
imperialism – completely different to the spineless bourgeois
nationalists he had replaced. French and British banks and companies
were immediately nationalised. Two months later, the rest of banking and
insurance was nationalised.

After the failure of private enterprise to invest between 1952-56, most
industry, manufacturing, trade and other services were nationalised.
State control of foreign trade, progressive taxation and the seizure of
property from 600 of the wealthiest families took place. State
investment increased industry from 10% of GNP in 1952 to 20% by 1962.
The Aswan dam was completed in 1968, tripling electricity output.

Between 1952-67 real wages rose by 44%, not counting food subsidies,
shorter hours, insurance and social security. School education was made
free in 1956, with higher education following in 1962, when all
graduates were guaranteed a job in public service. The number of
students grew by 8% a year from 1952-70. The number of state officials
grew from 350,000 in 1952 to 1.2 million by 1970, and 1.9 million by
1978.

These measures reflected the balance of forces on the world stage as
well as in Egypt. It was a period of unprecedented and almost
uninterrupted growth of the world economy. Imperialism was unable to
intervene in Egypt after the Suez debacle. Stalinist Russia supported a
regime that mirrored some its own features.

In 1957, state control turned trade unions into an arm of the state,
with well-rewarded leaders preventing workers’ independent organisation
and struggle. No workers’ control or any element of workers’ democracy
was allowed, without which genuine socialism cannot exist. Opposition
was ruthlessly stamped on, including the Communist Party (CP). The
middle class Free Officers found the absence of democratic rights
appealing, leaving their power unchallenged.

Despite the regime’s description of itself as ‘Arab socialism’,
capitalism continued in a distorted form. Egyptian capitalism had been
too weak to develop without massive state intervention. Sadat and
Mubarak later carried out privatisation without changing the nature of
the state. Key sections of the economy were taken over by senior army
officers and Mubarak’s supporters, friends and family.

Arab nationalism

Britain, France and Turkey largely drew the Middle East map in 1919,
reflecting their imperialist interests. The appeal of ‘Pan-Arabism’,
embracing the whole region, was partly a reaction to these artificially
created states and also to the terrible legacy of exploitation by
imperialism. Nasser used the new media of his time, radio, to reach a
mass audience across the Middle East. The Cairo-based Voice of the Arabs
radio station, launched in 1953, overcame national boundaries and
illiteracy, broadcasting ideas of Arab nationalism directly over the
heads of other governments.

In 1957, Syria was in deep political crisis, its capitalist class weak
and ineffectual. The two most influential parties were the Ba’th
(Renaissance) and CP. The CP, like other Stalinist parties, did not put
forward a programme of independent working-class action and socialism.
Both parties hoped Nasser’s popularity would rub off on them and
approached him with plans to unite the two countries. Syria’s senior
army officers also favoured the plan. Among Nasser’s conditions for the
union was the disbandment of all political parties apart from a single
state-controlled party.

The United Arab Republic (UAR) was founded in 1958, further enhancing
Nasser’s reputation throughout the Arab world. The impact led to
revolution in Iraq and nearly brought the downfall of governments in
Lebanon and Jordan in the same year.

However, no other states joined the UAR and Syria split from it within
three years. The land reform programme had angered Syrian landlords,
while businessmen were angered by nationalisation. Politicians and army
officers were embittered by their exclusion from power. The working
class, agricultural labourers and poor farmers had no independent
organisations and were not allowed any democratic control over the state.

A genuine workers’ state would have gained mass support with improved
living standards, education and welfare programmes. A federation of
democratic socialist states could have become a shining example to the
entire Arab world. But a bureaucratic regime without democratic rights,
not fully breaking from capitalism, could not overcome the
contradictions of the nation state. Each ruling class put its own
self-interests first.

After the failure of the UAR, Nasser turned further towards the Soviet
Union with more nationalisation. In 1962, a national charter spelled out
the revolution’s aims: ‘freedom, socialism and Arab unity’. The official
state party was renamed the Arab Socialist Union, part of which became
the National Democratic Party in 1976, providing Sadat and then Mubarak
with a base. (Last November, businessmen paid high sums to become NDP
candidates for the misnamed peoples’ assembly, knowing election would
help them win government contracts.)

Nasser supported the Algerian revolution against French colonial rule
and then the 1962 overthrow of the Yemeni royal family. Nearly half the
Egyptian army was sent to fight in Yemen, where it sustained heavy
casualties over the next five years. Without a class appeal to the
workers and poor, linked to a socialist programme including land
distribution and democratic rights, Egyptian troops became embroiled in
a bloody civil war.

This was followed in 1967 by the six-day war against Israel and heavy
military defeat, the Egyptian armed forces seriously depleted by their
continuing involvement in Yemen. For the first few days of war, the
Egyptian government maintained a stream of stories of military success,
even as its entire air force was destroyed and the army sustained
massive damage.

Nasser assumed full responsibility and resigned. But a massive
demonstration in Cairo demanded that he stay on. People refused to leave
the streets for 17 hours until he withdrew his resignation. However, he
never regained his previous authority among the Arab masses. Student
riots broke out in 1968, protesting against those responsible for the
war defeat but also reflecting wider dissatisfaction.

Nevertheless, when he died in 1970 an estimated ten million people
poured onto the streets for his funeral. Nasser’s legacy lived on, with
a nostalgic memory of anti-imperialism, rising living standards and
improving education.

Nasserism today

Socialism had widespread support among workers, the poor and youth
throughout the world at the time. Despite using the word ‘socialism,’
Nasser balanced between western imperialism and the Stalinist deformed
workers’ states. Without the democratic involvement of the working
class, together with the rural and urban poor, genuine socialism could
not be built. Instead, the way was paved for the subsequent
counter-reforms of Sadat and Mubarak, based on a bigger role for the
capitalist market.

Egypt’s population is more than twice as big today as in the 1960s. The
working class is far bigger, many working in giant factories employing
thousands. More people live in cities. There is now a much stronger
foundation for democratic socialism led by the working class, and
supported by the rural and urban poor, compared to half a century ago.

The international situation in 2011 is very different. The Soviet Union
has gone, leaving one global superpower. But the USA and world
capitalism is not enjoying a 25-year boom as in the 1950s and 1960s. On
the contrary, it is in the midst of the worst financial crisis for 80
years. There is no possibility of a new Egyptian government being able
to develop rapidly, providing jobs and rising living standards, if it
remains on the basis of capitalism.

The idea of pan-Arab nationalism has also changed. Although a strong
sense of solidarity has seen a revolutionary wave spread from Tunisia
across North Africa and the Middle East, the countries artificially
formed by European imperialists nearly a century ago have developed
their own national identities. Demonstrators have waved national flags,
symbolising their desire to reclaim their state from corrupt dictators.
Rather than a unified Arab state, as Nasser attempted to build, a
democratic federation of socialist states would now have more appeal
throughout the region. But socialism is less popular today as a result
of the after-effects of the collapse of Stalinism. The task of
socialists is to rebuild that support, by linking it to a programme
addressing all the problems facing workers, the poor and youth.